I agree, I think the boat is a tad too big, but wonder whether that really matters. I know Henning Lippke tried several moulds of single and choose one on the "big side" purposefully. Youngsters seem to manage in just about anything also... when in all likelihood they have sit far too much above the waterline.

Could it be the case that if you have the boatmanship to balance on a "thinner beam" (so to speak) that it doesn't matter much? Or are there advantages in certain conditions?

Compare..Different part of the stroke but the new GB lwt lady has arms really high. Its looks very good. Its a change to see a GB lightweigh women who is hanging so well with arms and looks loose and fluid and not tight and grippy with the arms and shoulders on early. This girl is really hanging on her leg power and the height allows this. My money says she will be in the 2x in Beijing if fit.

Looks good to me. I'd believe elite scullers after they master good bladework and are proficient at finishing well would benefit slightly from rigging low, but all the rest of us are better off rigged high.

The boat may be a bit too big, but given that her square blades are both off the water easily at the most critical part of the recovery says it's not going to matter to her.

I love all these pics you guys are putting out here.

Mike

27 Jul 2005 20:49:47

Carl Douglas

Re: Rig Height

Mike Sullivan <sul@SNIPslac.stanford.edu > writes > >"Neil Wallace" <rowing.golfer*NOSPAM*@virgin.net> wrote in message >news:3kpd17FvhlpqU1@individual.net... >> >> http://nialldarroch3081.fotopic.net/p18003265.html >> >> Too much height? >> Not Enough? >> Just right? >> Whadya think? > >Looks good to me. I'd believe elite scullers after >they master good bladework and are proficient >at finishing well would benefit slightly >from rigging low, but all the rest of us are better >off rigged high. > >The boat may be a bit too big, but given that her >square blades are both off the water easily at the >most critical part of the recovery says it's not >going to matter to her. > >I love all these pics you guys are putting out here. >

That's Caitie Gorton (Scotland). She's sculling one of our singles, built way back in 1988.

This boat is built for 60kg. After 17 years of continuous competition it is still handsome, stiff & competitive. We have it in our shop right now, for the first time in its life, for a spot of TLC following a minor bump or three.

In the picture Caitie has her hands level, which should put the bowside blade higher, but she is heeled over onto bowside quite a bit, which gives a visual sense of a lot of freeboard.

Caitie wrote: > Ths year, I actually gave myself more height to give myself slightly > more "room" at the finish. I also considered the capacity to hang the > weight of the blades and draw. I don't seem to have achieved this yet, > at the next photo shows - perhaps more height is required still? > > http://www.bigblade.net/rowing/events/2005/hwr05/events/displayimage.pl?src=events&im=3647&offset=1 > > The pic contrasts sharply with the U23 girl - very nicely hung off the > blades. > > Does one want to go for the highest rig possible? without missing the > catch or washing out at the finish? Does this achieve maximum effective > length? > > The boat, I think, is slightly too big for me (being somewhat of a > smurf) however its totally fabulous and has incredible run, and I > wouldn't swap it for anything, other than a brand new Carl Douglas. I > don't think that a smaller hull would make an impact on my speed, plus > its hard to buy a single that's been designed to be less than 60kgs.

Very nice position in the Henley photo. Looks like you are driving the seat and holding the body position constant which is also good. Lightweight women as Edouard pointed out do tend to row further throught the work as they do not have the upper body strength of a Mueller or Hacker to muscle the finish. But just on this you are doing most things exceptionally well.

28 Jul 2005 05:45:19

Caitie

Re: Rig Height

Yes, I was sitting still, I think I get what you are saying. Is this the kind of thing that would be helped by the feet out exercise?

28 Jul 2005 05:46:17

Caitie

Re: Rig Height

How very kind. thanks.

28 Jul 2005 16:19:34

Ewoud Dronkert

Re: Rig Height

On 28 Jul 2005 05:23:10 -0700, anton2468@aol.com wrote: > Very nice position in the Henley photo. Looks like you are driving the > seat and holding the body position constant which is also good.

Exactly, I think we are both fans of the Italian style.

> Lightweight women as Edouard pointed out do tend to row further > throught the work as they do not have the upper body strength of a > Mueller or Hacker to muscle the finish.

anton2468@aol.com writes > >Very nice position in the Henley photo. Looks like you are driving the >seat and holding the body position constant which is also good.

Couldn't help noticing that comment & wondering.

1. As regards the supposed merits of a fixed back posture: The angular position of the back relative to horizontal plane is sustained only by the rower constantly increasing the angle between thigh & lower back (say L5) as the legs go down.

Thus work is done continuously around that joint throughout that part of the stroke to maintain a fixed back inclination as the angle between back & thigh opens out, & there is no definable benefit which can arise out of sustaining any apparently static back inclination.

Nor is there any intrinsic mechanical connection between pelvis & boat which might tend to support any particular back posture.

2. As for driving the seat: The seat offers no significant resistance, so can need no driving. All that the pushing away of the feet from the body does is to increase the distance between the hands and the stern of the boat which is, after all, all one has to do to move the boat.

So, while it may be transiently useful as a mental concept, I would not have thought to see either fixed body angle WRT the horizontal plane or the concept of driving the seat proposed as significant indicators of good technique.

>Lightweight women as Edouard pointed out do tend to row further >throught the work as they do not have the upper body strength of a >Mueller or Hacker to muscle the finish. But just on this you are doing >most things exceptionally well.

This raises another, more philosophical, issue: LW women (& men) pull with but a fraction of the force generated by such as Marcel Hacker. Yet they use blades & rigs which are virtually identical in size & proportion to the big boys. Doesn't this seem odd?

Couple this with Anton's observations on the relatively wide range of body action of the lighties, as compared to the heavies. So both seem perhaps to be achieving the same angular range from catch to finish with teh same rigs but by different means. Can that make sense?

Thus at the same rating the big guy has far larger blade loadings than the small girl & leaves disproportionately larger puddles. The bigger puddles are because his blade slip is much greater as well as more forceful. So despite his more powerful stroke his propulsive efficiency has to be lower, because he is throwing more work away in unproductive slip (work lost = slip distance x force).

So shouldn't teh big guys think about reproportioning their rigs - wider spreads, longer sticks, but similar inboard/outboard ratios - & reproportioning their stroke lengths accordingly? Or do they feel not feel the need to go faster?

Carl, I agree with some of your comments about the rig, in particular the blades and oar length.

I think the bigger blades have made the oars shorter than they should be. I have Crokers with a cut out in them so that I can row 291-292, rather than 288. My catch and release angles are no different, but I have a longer arc in the water.

A really short stick also makes some of the angles a bit tight and alters the heights you can row.

C2 are bringing out a bigger blade - therefore shorter stick - Good or bad?

I won't argue the merits of a blade shape, but perhaps they need to be scaled down to allow for a longer stick?

LW/women's/junior sizes blades?

28 Jul 2005 16:47:43

Re: Rig Height

Carl Douglas wrote: > > 1. As regards the supposed merits of a fixed back posture: > The angular position of the back relative to horizontal plane is > sustained only by the rower constantly increasing the angle between > thigh & lower back (say L5) as the legs go down. > > Thus work is done continuously around that joint throughout that part of > the stroke to maintain a fixed back inclination as the angle between > back & thigh opens out, & there is no definable benefit which can arise > out of sustaining any apparently static back inclination. > > Nor is there any intrinsic mechanical connection between pelvis & boat > which might tend to support any particular back posture.

your knees are in a relatively weak position at the catch; if you start moving the back immediately they will stay in a weak position for more of the stroke and your quads will have to provide more force (although no more work) to do the same total work in the stroke. This is probably not conducive to moving boats, though I don't suppose it's really much of an issue for most people - OTOH, LW rowers would be most likely to find that a problem.

Pete

29 Jul 2005 09:11:35

Neil Wallace

Re: Rig Height

anton2468@aol.com wrote: (snip) > Lightweight women as Edouard pointed out do tend to row further > throught the work as they do not have the upper body strength of a > Mueller or Hacker to muscle the finish.

Marcel Hacker has a very delicate finish IMO.

29 Jul 2005 10:49:09

mislav

Re: Rig Height

"Carl Douglas" <Carl@carldouglas.co.uk > wrote in message news:MkRBZbFW0U6CFwhQ@rowing-cdrs.demon.co.uk... > anton2468@aol.com writes > > 2. As for driving the seat: > The seat offers no significant resistance, so can need no driving. All > that the pushing away of the feet from the body does is to increase the > distance between the hands and the stern of the boat which is, after all, > all one has to do to move the boat.

I would notice from time to time this "seat driving" technique watching races on a TV and was wondering why do people do it these days. I supposed there might be some differences/advances in technique like in many other sports, but back in 80's when I learned to row I was specifically taught not to do it, and that's because, as I was told at the time, if we started with legs only at the catch we would probably have our legs fully extended before the finish, therefore all force at this very important moment would have to be produced with arms and back only.

29 Jul 2005 12:03:03

Neil Wallace

Re: Rig Height

Carl Douglas wrote: (snip) > So, while it may be transiently useful as a mental concept, I would > not have thought to see either fixed body angle WRT the horizontal > plane or the concept of driving the seat proposed as significant > indicators of good technique.

Hi Carl,

I personally like the late body opening style of power application - best example I've seen in a 1x is Rumyana Neykova.

I think that this style, whilst not for everyone, encourages the "hang" on the handle often talked about, gives more space to manage the cross-over of the handles, and maintaining a horizontal action.

Looking forward to discussing such issues over cucumber sandwiches and Earl grey tea at Stracthclyde Park.

(or a deep fried Mars bar and pint of 80 shilling if you prefer the "when in Rome" approach) Neil

29 Jul 2005 04:14:18

Re: Rig Height

Neil Wallace wrote: > anton2468@aol.com wrote: > (snip) > > Lightweight women as Edouard pointed out do tend to row further > > throught the work as they do not have the upper body strength of a > > Mueller or Hacker to muscle the finish. > > > Marcel Hacker has a very delicate finish IMO.

So does Xeno but in comparison to the best lightweights their arms break earlier in the stroke and they use them more. It does not mean they are not smooth and precise.

29 Jul 2005 14:07:34

Jay L

Re: Rig Height

<ample snippage > > This raises another, more philosophical, issue: > LW women (& men) pull with but a fraction of the force generated by such > as Marcel Hacker. Yet they use blades & rigs which are virtually > identical in size & proportion to the big boys. Doesn't this seem odd? > > Couple this with Anton's observations on the relatively wide range of > body action of the lighties, as compared to the heavies. So both seem > perhaps to be achieving the same angular range from catch to finish with > teh same rigs but by different means. Can that make sense? > > Thus at the same rating the big guy has far larger blade loadings than > the small girl & leaves disproportionately larger puddles. The bigger > puddles are because his blade slip is much greater as well as more > forceful. So despite his more powerful stroke his propulsive efficiency > has to be lower, because he is throwing more work away in unproductive > slip (work lost = slip distance x force). > > So shouldn't teh big guys think about reproportioning their rigs - wider > spreads, longer sticks, but similar inboard/outboard ratios - & > reproportioning their stroke lengths accordingly? Or do they feel not > feel the need to go faster? > > Cheers - > Carl

When looking at the size of the CII big blade when compared with the smoothie, it looks like the big blade has more surface area. Could that be a motivation for the likes of Oxford and Canada using them? Would that not tie in with the notion that more surface area = less slip (and take care of some of the re-rig issue)?

Regards

Jay

29 Jul 2005 13:03:25

Carl Douglas

Re: Rig Height

petersr1088@hotmail.com writes >Carl Douglas wrote: >> >> 1. As regards the supposed merits of a fixed back posture: >> The angular position of the back relative to horizontal plane is >> sustained only by the rower constantly increasing the angle between >> thigh & lower back (say L5) as the legs go down. >> >> Thus work is done continuously around that joint throughout that part of >> the stroke to maintain a fixed back inclination as the angle between >> back & thigh opens out, & there is no definable benefit which can arise >> out of sustaining any apparently static back inclination. >> >> Nor is there any intrinsic mechanical connection between pelvis & boat >> which might tend to support any particular back posture. > >your knees are in a relatively weak position at the catch;

Are they? They are weak relative to when the legs are straightened, for sure. But weak in the folded position relative to every other muscle set used in rowing I very much doubt. I think your legs can handle every load you care to impose on them

But if they were "weak" at full compression, then at what stage would they cease to be "weak"?

> if you start >moving the back immediately they will stay in a weak position for more >of the stroke and your quads will have to provide more force (although >no more work) to do the same total work in the stroke.

Your quads have only to provide, as a reasonable first approximation, that force which your arms & hands can hold, because unless that is so you will not be rowing Put another way, the boat only resists your foot pressure because the hands are matching that pressure. (We have to remember that bodily accelerations are rather small in rowing as compared with jumping, because the boat is light & is free to move away with the feet - you don't "spring off" the stretcher.)

> This is probably >not conducive to moving boats, though I don't suppose it's really much >of an issue for most people - OTOH, LW rowers would be most likely to >find that a problem.

I'm intrigued as to why LW rowers should find things more (or less) problematic than others

Carl Douglas wrote: > petersr1088@hotmail.com writes > >Carl Douglas wrote: > >> > >> 1. As regards the supposed merits of a fixed back posture: > >> The angular position of the back relative to horizontal plane is > >> sustained only by the rower constantly increasing the angle between > >> thigh & lower back (say L5) as the legs go down. > >> > >> Thus work is done continuously around that joint throughout that part of > >> the stroke to maintain a fixed back inclination as the angle between > >> back & thigh opens out, & there is no definable benefit which can arise > >> out of sustaining any apparently static back inclination. > >> > >> Nor is there any intrinsic mechanical connection between pelvis & boat > >> which might tend to support any particular back posture. > > > >your knees are in a relatively weak position at the catch; > > Are they? They are weak relative to when the legs are straightened, for > sure. But weak in the folded position relative to every other muscle > set used in rowing I very much doubt. I think your legs can handle > every load you care to impose on them

quads are not all that strong compared to the glutes and hams, actually. look at the guys who set world records in the deadlift and you'll see most of them do something close to a straight-leg deadlift, doing almost all the work with glutes and hams, rather than try to use the quads much. erectors are also stronger than quads through most of the stroke, though I don't think I'd want to use them to provide power in the rowing stroke.

The legs probably can handle load, sure. That doesn't mean it's necessarily a good idea to impose load unnecessarily. For example (and I realise this is extreme by comparison) you can row for 30 minutes rating 20, flat out, fall off the machine at the end of the piece style. Then you can come back in a week and hold the same power output rating 26, and it'll feel relatively easy. Same work done (if anything more work done in the second case as you move yourself up and down the slide more) but less load imposed on the legs.

> But if they were "weak" at full compression, then at what stage would > they cease to be "weak"?

wherever you choose to draw the line, if you insist on doing it that way. Alternatively, draw a secant graph.

> > if you start > >moving the back immediately they will stay in a weak position for more > >of the stroke and your quads will have to provide more force (although > >no more work) to do the same total work in the stroke. > > Your quads have only to provide, as a reasonable first approximation, > that force which your arms & hands can hold, because unless that is so > you will not be rowing Put another way, the boat only resists your foot > pressure because the hands are matching that pressure. (We have to > remember that bodily accelerations are rather small in rowing as > compared with jumping, because the boat is light & is free to move away > with the feet - you don't "spring off" the stretcher.)

my quads are not likely to provide 1500N or so of force at any point in the rowing stroke, that being a force which I can hold with my arms and hands. arms and hands should not be a limiting factor in rowing, and they will be so only if you are either very new to the sport and haven't needed to use grip muscles much before or if you are rowing badly.

> > This is probably > >not conducive to moving boats, though I don't suppose it's really much > >of an issue for most people - OTOH, LW rowers would be most likely to > >find that a problem. > > I'm intrigued as to why LW rowers should find things more (or less) > problematic than others

LW have the least strength as compared to their power output, generally. so imposing an extra demand on strength is most likely to slow down a LW rower.

I do think this is a fairly minor point; there is a small advantage to not opening the back out at the catch, it reduces the load on your legs, but it isn't going to make much difference (and I know very well I do open my back at the catch a bit, anyway).

Pete

31 Jul 2005 11:11:04

mpruscoe

Re: Rig Height

Ewoud Dronkert wrote: > On 28 Jul 2005 05:23:10 -0700, anton2468@aol.com wrote: > >>Very nice position in the Henley photo. Looks like you are driving the >>seat and holding the body position constant which is also good. > > > Exactly, I think we are both fans of the Italian style. > How long will that be the Italian style though:

"The Italian ‘style’ has been known for its two part drive but de Capua wants to work towards a more fluid movement. “I want to achieve the right pressure from catch to finish and to do this with harmony. It’s kind of a dance. You have to dance on the foot stretcher, you have to let the boat float.”"

31 Jul 2005 11:17:09

mpruscoe

Re: Rig Height

mpruscoe wrote: > Ewoud Dronkert wrote: > >> On 28 Jul 2005 05:23:10 -0700, anton2468@aol.com wrote: >> >>> Very nice position in the Henley photo. Looks like you are driving the >>> seat and holding the body position constant which is also good. >> >> >> >> Exactly, I think we are both fans of the Italian style. >> > How long will that be the Italian style though: > > http://www.fisa.org/news/fullstory.sps?iNewsid=205239&itype= > > "The Italian ‘style’ has been known for its two part drive but de Capua > wants to work towards a more fluid movement. “I want to achieve the > right pressure from catch to finish and to do this with harmony. It’s > kind of a dance. You have to dance on the foot stretcher, you have to > let the boat float.”"

Does this maybe mean that we will have heard the last of "the Italians are sitting very low in the boat..." :)